Look at you, you know how to use google (when you’re not asking women about their cycles).
Also, Adrian Clayborn shut that bitch-ass offense down. Sorry for your loss on that one.
Florida 6 week abortion ban
- Thread starter bcherod
- Start date
Also, Adrian Clayborn shut that bitch-ass offense down. Sorry for your loss on that one.
According to my source (Alexa) there are around 73 million women of childbearing age in the US.
If your number is right, 16 out of every 1000 women of childbearing age has an abortion every year.
Alexa also tells me that we have around 4 million births a year. Which means around 22.9% of all pregnancies are aborted.
Those numbers sound very wrong to me, but who am I to argue with the Society of Family Planning and Alexa?
AC had a big night. Probably should have turned pro after that performance considering how things went after.
So how long HAVE you gone without sex?
You sound like you got into a huge argument with the female human who has a clam and now all women are stupid as shit.
You are IMO a loser who’s lucky any woman would have you.
In my opinion, you’re old and take literally far too much of what you see online.
I am old which is a FACT.
The rest of your statement is an opinion, but perhaps you should reconsider your emotional wording if you don’t want to be taken literally.
You might wanna review some ObGyn literature on this one, before continuing with your idiocy here.
Well, if that's how you look at it.
Some of us see aborted fetuses, not dead babies.
"Baby" has a well-established meaning.
I believe the purpose of many of these laws is to allow for limited exceptions but at the same time try to create uncertainty and concern among medical providers that their medical judgment will be challenged by the State. An OB/Gyn who is worried about criminal liability or an adverse licensure action may just decide it’s not worth it. That’s part of the goal for these pro-life activists.
Embryo at 5 wks
Embryo at 6 wks
Embryos 5 wks thru 9 wks
www.theguardian.com
Embryo at 6 wks
Embryos 5 wks thru 9 wks
What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures
In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like
I'm sorry. Clearly the 8 and 9 week pics are wrong. I know what it looks like when my white Persian cat throws up a hair ball - and those are what it looks like.Embryos 5 wks thru 9 wks
Your Persian cat is aborting human 'babies' and must be destroyed....
What do you bread in a hot toaster? Do you call it heating wheat or do you call it toast? Most people I know would call it toast, no matter what stage it's on, once the bread has begun the process, it comes out toast. Once there is a fetus, no matter what stage in its life cycle it's in, it's a baby when it comes out. At 6 weeks, 15, weeks, 36 weeks...
How disgusting misogynist of you to deign to think you know better than women, who know their own bodies.
That's after it's sucked out.Embryo at 5 wks
Embryo at 6 wks
Embryos 5 wks thru 9 wks
What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures
In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like
It's 100% innocent human life no matter what it's called.
Innocent until born, then they’re made to suffer at the hands of their inept parents who can’t afford them.
You think the only people having abortions are poor?
Well, for every 100 women who faithfully use the pill for birth control, 1-2 of them will become pregnant. For those who are less exacting, their chances are higher.
And, various methods of birth care have not been 100% effective. A friend of mine had an IUD, ended up pregnant, and didn’t know it for months.
When her son was born, the IUD was embedded in his shoulder.
It’s laughable that men make decisions for women. It’s laughable that they have any clue about what we go through.
When her son was born, the IUD was embedded in his shoulder.
It’s laughable that men make decisions for women. It’s laughable that they have any clue about what we go through.
It's bread when it goes in, toast when it comes out.
You could argue that it becomes toast a little before it pops out. But not until late in the cycle.
I think you just unintentionally made an argument for allowing abortions lots later in the pregnancy.
Gee, you guys that think you know it all?
You’ve never come close to experiencing a miscarriage. Have you ever seen the process and what comes out? I doubt that you’d be able to stomach it.
You’ve never come close to experiencing a miscarriage. Have you ever seen the process and what comes out? I doubt that you’d be able to stomach it.
...and if you 'abort' it early, what you get out is 'warm bread', not toast...
The bolded part satisfies the law.
I don't know how to make it any more plain to you.
Let's try it another way.
Explain to me the contradiction you see between the two sections of your post I put in bold.
I don't know the Texas law.
You're in a thread about the Florida law.
Baby refers to a stage of growth. It isn't a type of animal.
A baby human is a human from inception.
A baby elephant is an elephant from inception.
If you think it isn't, what animal do you think it is?
Where does it go on the phylogenetic tree?
Only AFTER there is "serious risk", which is NOT the case early in a miscarriage, when it is still possible it may resolve on its own.
But Standard Of Care is immediate intervention to PREVENT the serious risks of sepsis or other complications.
You NEED to intervene BEFORE there is "serious risk" to your patient.
If this were a heart patient w/ a heart pacing/A-fib issue, it'd be a "low risk" and you could only "intervene" when that turned into full cardiac arrest. Because the moderate A-fib or tachycardia is not a "serious risk" to the patient.
A baby human is a human, for sure. But it isn't a baby at conception.
Again, "baby" has a definition. So do "zygote" and "fetus".
As you say, there are stages of growth. Those words apply to different stages. There's nothing ambiguous about this.
And yet it's human the whole time.
There are elephant zygotes, and elephant fetuses.
If you kill an elephant fetus, in what respect have you not killed an elephant?
Hey Goldmom, just wanted to say that you have rocked in this thread.
No, it doesn't. Not even remotely. Carrying a T-18 fetus to term elevates a woman's chances of experiencing everything outlined previously. And those complications could impact her long-term reproductive health...but they might not. Your FL law doesn't give the woman the option of weighing those potential risks and doing what she feels is in her own best interests. Your FL law would require her to continue the pregnancy to term...just like the TX law. How you keep missing that most obvious point...well, I suspect it might be deliberate.
I asked if you could explain the contradiction you see.
FL law requires "a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment". Your wife (you have one, I assume) is in the hospital. Her fetus is absolutely not viable. Carrying it presents risks to her health and ability to have a future successful pregnancy.
You just described the situation your citation of the law accommodates.
How you keep missing that most obvious point...well, I suspect it might be deliberate.
You're just a f'n idiot. TX has the same "exceptions" as FL. In TX a woman must demonstrate the risk for “substantial impairment of major bodily function.” And Kate Cox - carrying a T-18 fetus - was denied an abortion because the dangers were hypothetical, you moran. She wasn't allowed to weigh those risks and make her OWN judgement about those risks. TX told her it was too bad her fetus had no hope for survival but, early in her pregnancy, the future risks she might have to deal with just weren't serious enough. FL would rule the same way.
Carrying it presents risks to her health and ability to have a future successful pregnancy DOES NOT EQUAL a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment.
I'm not sure if you're misstating the court because you're relying on someone else to tell you what they said, or if you're deliberately being misleading yourself.
Have you read the decision, and do you understand what they were deciding?
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf
What did the Texas Supreme Court actually say?
She asked the courts to make the decision, and they said it's legally a decision for her doctor to make:
In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox’s doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan—believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.
...
The exception requires a doctor to decide whether Ms. Cox’s difficulties pose such risks. Dr. Karsan asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.
They were trying to make a political point, that she should be able to get the abortion without the Dr. asserting it's medical necessity.
A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.
They didn't refuse her right to obtain an abortion in the circumstance, they denied that the court has a role in determining the necessity:
For example, the statute does not require “imminence” or, as Ms. Cox’s lawyer characterized the State’s position, that a patient be “about to die before a doctor can rely on the exception.” The exception does not hold a doctor to medical certainty, nor does it cover only adverse results that will happen immediately absent an abortion, nor does it ask the doctor to wait until the mother is within an inch of death or her bodily impairment is fully manifest or practically irreversible. The exception does not mandate that a doctor in a true emergency await consultation with other doctors who may not be available. Rather, the exception is predicated on a doctor’s acting within the zone of reasonable medical judgment, which is what doctors do every day. An exercise of reasonable medical judgment does not mean that every doctor would reach the same conclusion.
A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment. If Ms. Cox’s circumstances are, or have become, those that satisfy the statutory exception, no court order is needed. Nothing in this opinion prevents a physician from acting if, in that physician’s reasonable medical judgment, she determines that Ms. Cox has a “lifethreatening physical condition” that places her “at risk of death” or “poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law. The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena.
